Re: [aqm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05.txt> (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

On 3/24/2016 9:01 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Dave Cridland <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>> Well, I have to ask why, in this case, it's Experimental and not
>> Standards-Track?
> Heh. Well, I guess the short answer is "because there wasn't WG
> consensus to do that". Basically, the working group decided that all the
> algorithms we are describing will be experimental rather than standards
> track, at least for now. Because they are queueing algorithms and not
> protocols (and so do not have the same interoperability requirements),
> this was deemed an acceptable way forward, and a way to get it "out
> there" without having to have to agree to push for The One True AQM(tm).
>
> (This is my understanding; I'm sure someone will chime in and correct me
> if I'm wrong).
>
>
> Personally, I would have no problem with this being standards track :)
>
>


I am one of the WG chairs and document shepherd.  The AQM charter does 
allow for publication on the Standards Track, but at this point in time 
there did not seem to be a consensus that this was necessary, plus given 
some of the open research questions, it seemed like a prudent choice.  
We can always go stronger and make a standard later on.

I think Bob's concerns here, and the disagreement about what happens in 
reality, make it very obvious that Experimental is the right choice!  
The indications so far are that this has a lot of promise to help, but 
there are questions, and it could benefit from even more experience 
deploying in the wild, and watching what happens.